The Pet Thread

pangolin

laurentian said:

Again "most" doesn't equal "all" and I for one care. The human race is pretty adept at killing its own kind with no affect on overall population, it doesn't make that right.

As far as what the "article is saying" it says "They estimate that cats in the UK catch up to 100 million prey items over spring and summer, of which 27 million are birds." Whatever it goes on to say about the relative health or life expectancy of those doesn't change this.

Of course the relative health of those animals changes it. It's the difference between a perfectly healthy animal being struck down in the prime of its life by a cat, or a dying mouse just being found by one.

Are you cool with mice being killed by other predators, or dying of hunger, or being shredded by a combine? Is it all animal death that offends or is it just because cats have been introduced by humans?

focuszing723

I find it interesting what is considered a pet or a pest, a weed or a plant? I guess it depends on the individuals perspective.

laurentian

pangolin said:

laurentian said:

Again "most" doesn't equal "all" and I for one care. The human race is pretty adept at killing its own kind with no affect on overall population, it doesn't make that right.

As far as what the "article is saying" it says "They estimate that cats in the UK catch up to 100 million prey items over spring and summer, of which 27 million are birds." Whatever it goes on to say about the relative health or life expectancy of those doesn't change this.

Of course the relative health of those animals changes it. It's the difference between a perfectly healthy animal being struck down in the prime of its life by a cat, or a dying mouse just being found by one.

Are you cool with mice being killed by other predators, or dying of hunger, or being shredded by a combine? Is it all animal death that offends or is it just because cats have been introduced by humans?

It doesn't change the 100 million figure although I fully understand the point you are making. However, I would argue (again) that "most" does not mean "all" and so, by definition, the rest that are left after "most" are killed are not dying, ill or otherwise destined to shuffle off this mortal coil so soon.

I am absolutely cool with mice being killed by other predators - I find it endlessly fascinating and a joy to behold if the predators in question are indigenous predator species.

I love to watch sparrowhawks, kestrels, herons, hen harriers, pine martens etc. doing their thing. That's the food chain, that's nature. Domestic cats are not an indigenous species or part of the natural food chain in the UK - that's what I'm not cool with. I would also argue that the dead and dying birds and mammals hoovered up by cats would be at least partly beneficial to the indigenous predator species as a food source that they are being denied by the habits of cats . . . stands to reason no?

pangolin

laurentian said:

pangolin said:

laurentian said:

Again "most" doesn't equal "all" and I for one care. The human race is pretty adept at killing its own kind with no affect on overall population, it doesn't make that right.

As far as what the "article is saying" it says "They estimate that cats in the UK catch up to 100 million prey items over spring and summer, of which 27 million are birds." Whatever it goes on to say about the relative health or life expectancy of those doesn't change this.

Of course the relative health of those animals changes it. It's the difference between a perfectly healthy animal being struck down in the prime of its life by a cat, or a dying mouse just being found by one.

Are you cool with mice being killed by other predators, or dying of hunger, or being shredded by a combine? Is it all animal death that offends or is it just because cats have been introduced by humans?

It doesn't change the 100 million figure although I fully understand the point you are making. However, I would argue (again) that "most" does not mean "all" and so, by definition, the rest that are left after "most" are killed are not dying, ill or otherwise destined to shuffle off this mortal coil so soon.

I am absolutely cool with mice being killed by other predators - I find it endlessly fascinating and a joy to behold if the predators in question are indigenous predator species.

I love to watch sparrowhawks, kestrels, herons, hen harriers, pine martens etc. doing their thing. That's the food chain, that's nature. Domestic cats are not an indigenous species or part of the natural food chain in the UK - that's what I'm not cool with. I would also argue that the dead and dying birds and mammals hoovered up by cats would be at least partly beneficial to the indigenous predator species as a food source that they are being denied by the habits of cats . . . stands to reason no?

I'm sure it would be nice if we could observe a food chain not impacted by humans in some way - but by it's very definition we wouldn't be around to see it.

Cats act as a bit of a lightning rod for peoples ire because what they do tends to happen in our own back gardens so we see it. But you're kidding yourself if you think removing them would get us a fraction of a % towards restoring a "natural food chain" in the UK.

laurentian

pangolin said:

laurentian said:

pangolin said:

laurentian said:

Again "most" doesn't equal "all" and I for one care. The human race is pretty adept at killing its own kind with no affect on overall population, it doesn't make that right.

As far as what the "article is saying" it says "They estimate that cats in the UK catch up to 100 million prey items over spring and summer, of which 27 million are birds." Whatever it goes on to say about the relative health or life expectancy of those doesn't change this.

Of course the relative health of those animals changes it. It's the difference between a perfectly healthy animal being struck down in the prime of its life by a cat, or a dying mouse just being found by one.

Are you cool with mice being killed by other predators, or dying of hunger, or being shredded by a combine? Is it all animal death that offends or is it just because cats have been introduced by humans?

It doesn't change the 100 million figure although I fully understand the point you are making. However, I would argue (again) that "most" does not mean "all" and so, by definition, the rest that are left after "most" are killed are not dying, ill or otherwise destined to shuffle off this mortal coil so soon.

I am absolutely cool with mice being killed by other predators - I find it endlessly fascinating and a joy to behold if the predators in question are indigenous predator species.

I love to watch sparrowhawks, kestrels, herons, hen harriers, pine martens etc. doing their thing. That's the food chain, that's nature. Domestic cats are not an indigenous species or part of the natural food chain in the UK - that's what I'm not cool with. I would also argue that the dead and dying birds and mammals hoovered up by cats would be at least partly beneficial to the indigenous predator species as a food source that they are being denied by the habits of cats . . . stands to reason no?

Cats act as a bit of a lightning rod for peoples ire because what they do tends to happen in our own back gardens so we see it. But you're kidding yourself if you think removing them would get us a fraction of a % towards restoring a "natural food chain" in the UK.

This is a good point and I agree - it would be a very marginal gain.

Genuine question here: Would you be happy if dogs had the same "right to roam" as cats?

pangolin

laurentian said:

pangolin said:

laurentian said:

pangolin said:

laurentian said:

Again "most" doesn't equal "all" and I for one care. The human race is pretty adept at killing its own kind with no affect on overall population, it doesn't make that right.

As far as what the "article is saying" it says "They estimate that cats in the UK catch up to 100 million prey items over spring and summer, of which 27 million are birds." Whatever it goes on to say about the relative health or life expectancy of those doesn't change this.

Of course the relative health of those animals changes it. It's the difference between a perfectly healthy animal being struck down in the prime of its life by a cat, or a dying mouse just being found by one.

Are you cool with mice being killed by other predators, or dying of hunger, or being shredded by a combine? Is it all animal death that offends or is it just because cats have been introduced by humans?

It doesn't change the 100 million figure although I fully understand the point you are making. However, I would argue (again) that "most" does not mean "all" and so, by definition, the rest that are left after "most" are killed are not dying, ill or otherwise destined to shuffle off this mortal coil so soon.

I am absolutely cool with mice being killed by other predators - I find it endlessly fascinating and a joy to behold if the predators in question are indigenous predator species.

I love to watch sparrowhawks, kestrels, herons, hen harriers, pine martens etc. doing their thing. That's the food chain, that's nature. Domestic cats are not an indigenous species or part of the natural food chain in the UK - that's what I'm not cool with. I would also argue that the dead and dying birds and mammals hoovered up by cats would be at least partly beneficial to the indigenous predator species as a food source that they are being denied by the habits of cats . . . stands to reason no?

Cats act as a bit of a lightning rod for peoples ire because what they do tends to happen in our own back gardens so we see it. But you're kidding yourself if you think removing them would get us a fraction of a % towards restoring a "natural food chain" in the UK.

This is a good point and I agree - it would be a very marginal gain.

Genuine question here: Would you be happy if dogs had the same "right to roam" as cats?

Hmm no I would not. We did used to have a dog that regularly came into our garden, and when I finally identified the owner and told them they seemed completely unconcerned. It didn't do anything so it didn't really matter, but I might have felt differently if I'd had young kids then.

However scale that up across the country and there are too many dogs that would end up biting people (and they're big enough to damage property if that way inclined). Also cat poo is annoying but not as bad as dog poo.

And lots wouldn't go home. Quite a different animal, so to speak.

First.Aspect

The hundred million figure was the one ripped to shreds. You'll see it isn't one of the RSPCA's, but is quoted by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Rodents or somesuch. It is one of those "X cats, by up to Y prey a day, x365 = shock horror" statistics.

It's a while ago but I think another estimate good old Tim Hartford came up with was 6 million or something like that.

laurentian

First.Aspect said:

The hundred million figure was the one ripped to shreds. You'll see it isn't one of the RSPCA's, but is quoted by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Rodents or somesuch. It is one of those "X cats, by up to Y prey a day, x365 = shock horror" statistics.

It's a while ago but I think another estimate good old Tim Hartford came up with was 6 million or something like that.

Fair enough - I didn't hear that episode of More or Less so can't really comment. 6 million is still a big number . . .

pangolin

laurentian said:

First.Aspect said:

The hundred million figure was the one ripped to shreds. You'll see it isn't one of the RSPCA's, but is quoted by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Rodents or somesuch. It is one of those "X cats, by up to Y prey a day, x365 = shock horror" statistics.

It's a while ago but I think another estimate good old Tim Hartford came up with was 6 million or something like that.

Fair enough - I didn't hear that episode of More or Less so can't really comment. 6 million is still a big number . . .

It's not a big number without context though. 6 million out of what?

laurentian

pangolin said:

laurentian said:

pangolin said:

laurentian said:

pangolin said:

laurentian said:

Again "most" doesn't equal "all" and I for one care. The human race is pretty adept at killing its own kind with no affect on overall population, it doesn't make that right.

As far as what the "article is saying" it says "They estimate that cats in the UK catch up to 100 million prey items over spring and summer, of which 27 million are birds." Whatever it goes on to say about the relative health or life expectancy of those doesn't change this.

Of course the relative health of those animals changes it. It's the difference between a perfectly healthy animal being struck down in the prime of its life by a cat, or a dying mouse just being found by one.

Are you cool with mice being killed by other predators, or dying of hunger, or being shredded by a combine? Is it all animal death that offends or is it just because cats have been introduced by humans?

It doesn't change the 100 million figure although I fully understand the point you are making. However, I would argue (again) that "most" does not mean "all" and so, by definition, the rest that are left after "most" are killed are not dying, ill or otherwise destined to shuffle off this mortal coil so soon.

I am absolutely cool with mice being killed by other predators - I find it endlessly fascinating and a joy to behold if the predators in question are indigenous predator species.

I love to watch sparrowhawks, kestrels, herons, hen harriers, pine martens etc. doing their thing. That's the food chain, that's nature. Domestic cats are not an indigenous species or part of the natural food chain in the UK - that's what I'm not cool with. I would also argue that the dead and dying birds and mammals hoovered up by cats would be at least partly beneficial to the indigenous predator species as a food source that they are being denied by the habits of cats . . . stands to reason no?

Cats act as a bit of a lightning rod for peoples ire because what they do tends to happen in our own back gardens so we see it. But you're kidding yourself if you think removing them would get us a fraction of a % towards restoring a "natural food chain" in the UK.

This is a good point and I agree - it would be a very marginal gain.

Genuine question here: Would you be happy if dogs had the same "right to roam" as cats?

Hmm no I would not. We did used to have a dog that regularly came into our garden, and when I finally identified the owner and told them they seemed completely unconcerned. It didn't do anything so it didn't really matter, but I might have felt differently if I'd had young kids then.

However scale that up across the country and there are too many dogs that would end up biting people (and they're big enough to damage property if that way inclined). Also cat poo is annoying but not as bad as dog poo.

And lots wouldn't go home. Quite a different animal, so to speak.

Thanks - your point on them biting people is a good one and I suppose one of the reasons that the laws are what they are. Personally I would be in favour of cats being under the same restrictions as dogs insofar as they shouldn't be allowed to roam wherever and when ever they want, owners should be obliged to pick up faeces etc. but that's probably a stretch for most cat owners.

First.Aspect

laurentian said:

First.Aspect said:

The hundred million figure was the one ripped to shreds. You'll see it isn't one of the RSPCA's, but is quoted by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Rodents or somesuch. It is one of those "X cats, by up to Y prey a day, x365 = shock horror" statistics.

It's a while ago but I think another estimate good old Tim Hartford came up with was 6 million or something like that.

Fair enough - I didn't hear that episode of More or Less so can't really comment. 6 million is still a big number . . .

You need context to say it six million is a large number.

It is a small number of stars in the universe but a big number of pounds in a salary.

How many birds are there in the UK?

laurentian

First.Aspect said:

laurentian said:

First.Aspect said:

The hundred million figure was the one ripped to shreds. You'll see it isn't one of the RSPCA's, but is quoted by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Rodents or somesuch. It is one of those "X cats, by up to Y prey a day, x365 = shock horror" statistics.

It's a while ago but I think another estimate good old Tim Hartford came up with was 6 million or something like that.

Fair enough - I didn't hear that episode of More or Less so can't really comment. 6 million is still a big number . . .

You need context to say it six million is a large number.

It is a small number of stars in the universe but a big number of pounds in a salary.

How many birds are there in the UK?

BTO says 84 million pairs:

https://www.bto.org/sites/default/files/publications/population-estimates-of-birds-in-great-britain-and-the-united-kingdom-2013.pdf

So 6 million = 3.57%

pangolin

Mice are not birds

laurentian

pangolin said:

Mice are not birds

This is true.

First.Aspect

laurentian said:

pangolin said:

Mice are not birds

This is true.

I agree.

laurentian

First.Aspect said:

laurentian said:

pangolin said:

Mice are not birds

This is true.

I agree.

Concensus at last! Lets move on.

pangolin

Lol - in case it's not clear, the 3.57% figure would only apply if it was 6 million birds the cats were accused of killing. But it's small animals, not just birds.

laurentian

pangolin said:

Lol - in case it's not clear, the 3.57% figure would only apply if it was 6 million birds the cats were accused of killing. But it's small animals, not just birds.

I haven't seen those figures and whether they apply to mammals as well as birds - its the figure that FA posted - I assumed for birds but stand to be corrected. The 27 million birds stated by the RSPB would be just over 16% of the bird population for some balance.

rjsterry

laurentian said:

pangolin said:

laurentian said:

pangolin said:

laurentian said:

pangolin said:

laurentian said:

Again "most" doesn't equal "all" and I for one care. The human race is pretty adept at killing its own kind with no affect on overall population, it doesn't make that right.

As far as what the "article is saying" it says "They estimate that cats in the UK catch up to 100 million prey items over spring and summer, of which 27 million are birds." Whatever it goes on to say about the relative health or life expectancy of those doesn't change this.

Of course the relative health of those animals changes it. It's the difference between a perfectly healthy animal being struck down in the prime of its life by a cat, or a dying mouse just being found by one.

Are you cool with mice being killed by other predators, or dying of hunger, or being shredded by a combine? Is it all animal death that offends or is it just because cats have been introduced by humans?

It doesn't change the 100 million figure although I fully understand the point you are making. However, I would argue (again) that "most" does not mean "all" and so, by definition, the rest that are left after "most" are killed are not dying, ill or otherwise destined to shuffle off this mortal coil so soon.

I am absolutely cool with mice being killed by other predators - I find it endlessly fascinating and a joy to behold if the predators in question are indigenous predator species.

I love to watch sparrowhawks, kestrels, herons, hen harriers, pine martens etc. doing their thing. That's the food chain, that's nature. Domestic cats are not an indigenous species or part of the natural food chain in the UK - that's what I'm not cool with. I would also argue that the dead and dying birds and mammals hoovered up by cats would be at least partly beneficial to the indigenous predator species as a food source that they are being denied by the habits of cats . . . stands to reason no?

Cats act as a bit of a lightning rod for peoples ire because what they do tends to happen in our own back gardens so we see it. But you're kidding yourself if you think removing them would get us a fraction of a % towards restoring a "natural food chain" in the UK.

This is a good point and I agree - it would be a very marginal gain.

Genuine question here: Would you be happy if dogs had the same "right to roam" as cats?

Hmm no I would not. We did used to have a dog that regularly came into our garden, and when I finally identified the owner and told them they seemed completely unconcerned. It didn't do anything so it didn't really matter, but I might have felt differently if I'd had young kids then.

However scale that up across the country and there are too many dogs that would end up biting people (and they're big enough to damage property if that way inclined). Also cat poo is annoying but not as bad as dog poo.

And lots wouldn't go home. Quite a different animal, so to speak.

Thanks - your point on them biting people is a good one and I suppose one of the reasons that the laws are what they are. Personally I would be in favour of cats being under the same restrictions as dogs insofar as they shouldn't be allowed to roam wherever and when ever they want, owners should be obliged to pick up faeces etc. but that's probably a stretch for most cat owners.

I would suggest a significant issue is practicality. They (and foxes) can clear a 6' fence with ease. Cats also prevent each other from roaming very far. A collar with a bell seems to keep the predation of birds and rodents down - I'm pretty sure the sparrows that congregate in my pyracantha enjoy tormenting my cat. The local fox population predates our compost heap slow worms significantly more than the cats.

As far as the indigenous species argument goes, the earliest evidence of domestic cats in Britain is 250BC, so they pre-date the modern landscape by several centuries. I'd suggest post-war land use changes have had a far bigger impact than a few more cats. I'd also put cats behind grey squirrels, mink crayfish and muntjac deer.

First.Aspect

Yeah not sure about the 6 million to be honest. Could be as high as 27 million!!

But let's be honest if it was that high then cats would indeed be about 1 in 7 of the UK bird population.

And therein lies the crux of the More or Less episode.

Do you seriously think it is that high a proportion?

It is one of those stats that on closer inspection simply cannot be even close to being right.

kingstongraham

There are 10 million cats in the UK. One each in a year gives you a quite big number.

I'm in the "that's just the way it is" camp, circle of life etc.

pangolin

Ours has caught a couple of mice but only 1 died I think. No birds.

No idea how many mice there are in the UK so it's hard to know if 6-10 million 'things' is meaningful (and again, what portion were on their last legs anyway).

First.Aspect

kingstongraham said:

There are 10 million cats in the UK. One each in a year gives you a quite big number.

I'm in the "that's just the way it is" camp, circle of life etc.

Yeah but that's the forward calculation and it produces an erroneous number. One of my cats used to catch about 2 a week at one point. Extrapolated over 10 million cata that's more birds than there actually are. It isn't the way to do these things.

pangolin

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

There are 10 million cats in the UK. One each in a year gives you a quite big number.

I'm in the "that's just the way it is" camp, circle of life etc.

Yeah but that's the forward calculation and it produces an erroneous number. One of my cats used to catch about 2 a week at one point. Extrapolated over 10 million cata that's more birds than there actually are. It isn't the way to do these things.

What is the correct way? Number of cats is certainly a pertinent bit of data.

First.Aspect

I don't know but if it's already manifestly wrong then something else.

How about look for correlation between estimated bird and estimated cat numbers over time.

The trend in cat numbers should, if your forward calculation holds, result in a commensurate species decline.

Only the RSPCA haven't found any.

Obviously not straightforward analysis because of other factors. E.g. more people correlates both to less countryside and more cats.

But the point is that simple multiplication doesn't seem to work very well, or we would not have many birds.

kingstongraham

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

There are 10 million cats in the UK. One each in a year gives you a quite big number.

I'm in the "that's just the way it is" camp, circle of life etc.

Yeah but that's the forward calculation and it produces an erroneous number. One of my cats used to catch about 2 a week at one point. Extrapolated over 10 million cata that's more birds than there actually are. It isn't the way to do these things.

I wasn't meaning that would be an accurate number, just that a large number doesn't seem ridiculous. Or a problem.

First.Aspect

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

There are 10 million cats in the UK. One each in a year gives you a quite big number.

I'm in the "that's just the way it is" camp, circle of life etc.

Yeah but that's the forward calculation and it produces an erroneous number. One of my cats used to catch about 2 a week at one point. Extrapolated over 10 million cata that's more birds than there actually are. It isn't the way to do these things.

I wasn't meaning that would be an accurate number, just that a large number doesn't seem ridiculous. Or a problem.

Perhaps. I'd have thought one in 7 of all birds would qualify as a rediculous estimate. It isn't as though cats haul in many geese or seaguls is it? If you narrow it down to the ickle species the actually catch, you run out of ickle birds.

bm5

To me cat poo is a bigger nuisance than dog poo. Cats regularly come into the neighbours garden and majority of dog owners dispose of dog poo.

First.Aspect

bm5 said:

To me cat poo is a bigger nuisance than dog poo. Cats regularly come into the neighbours garden and majority of dog owners dispose of dog poo.

And leave it hanging on a local fencepost.

Neither is great, to be honest, but I've never had to spend half an hour trying to get the cat poo out of the fine treads of my trainers, or from around the fork crown on my bike. Doesn't tend to find its way onto school football pitches or the local beach either.

Cats have the decency to go somewhere quiet and for the most part only offend the keen gardeners among us.

elbowloh

Dog poo is the bigger problem fore, especially with the kids are many people don't clear it up and as FA says, those that do often leave it hanging in bags of trees fences and posts.

Some fecker even let their dog poo in the fenced off playground that my boy managed to tree in earlier in the year. I mean who bloody let's their dog a) poo in a playground and b) not clear it up? Absolute cnuty cnuts that's who.